This new crop of oils are far less robust than the superb products of the modern era. I do have to wonder if that is a factor.
Mobil 1 FS 0w40, RAM 1500 5.7L HEMI 6000 mi, high FE
- Thread starter tcrs_circuit
- Start date
And yet this one in particular passes stringent wear requirements for the European approvals it obtains. I wonder how that works?
Less robust because it has less calcium? Or......?
what is the 4 digit revision number on the back? My guess is 6748? I noticed the labels are the same but the new revision number is 6748 and the old is 6294Filter is already gone sadly .... wish I would have kept it or thought of it...stress kills the brain.
I guess cleaning old deposits is possible, I replaced the valve cover gaskets 50k miles ago and there was almost no varnish. Who's to say around the pistons though.
Surprisingly, the bottle of oil is API SN labeled. Willing to bet this is the API SP formula, and they just havent updated the label yet. I'll send a voa out if anyone wants me to.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, I'm a bit confused by that comment. Overall detergent pack is roughly the same, with magnesium just taking up a larger share as calcium was reduced. Phosphorous, boron and moly all look the same as before.
My guess is one of those, "they changed it, it must be for the worse! Otherwise, why change it?!!??!?!?!" with no proof whatsoever of the product being better or worse.
Just a little update. Decided to pull a couple spark plugs and borescope it... cylinder walls looked great, original crosshatch present.... what I did see was evidence of valve seal seepage with gummy deposits on the edge of the piston and top of the cyl.... I'd wager it's very possible for some of these deposits to be around the rings, in which the mobil 0w40 may be cleaning. Pistons are aluminum and sleeves are iron which is what was elevated in the UOA.. It makes total sense if the oil was just cleaning some of this junk up.
I'm going to drain this valvoline and switch back to the 0w40.. See what happens to iron in the next UOA.
I will say this, the engine was quieter on the M1... the HEMIs are always a little clicky and that's normal, but the M1 was the quietest oil ive run, not that it matters much.
At the end of this interval, ill cut the filter open too.
I'm going to drain this valvoline and switch back to the 0w40.. See what happens to iron in the next UOA.
I will say this, the engine was quieter on the M1... the HEMIs are always a little clicky and that's normal, but the M1 was the quietest oil ive run, not that it matters much.
At the end of this interval, ill cut the filter open too.
This is something I kind of noticed while looking through multiple UOA's.
It seems Valvoline, Pennzoil, etc which are great oils start out with a higher TBN and Mobil 1 starts out with a bit lower of a TBN. However what I am noticing is Mobil 1 TBN seems to hold up slightly better on UOA's even in the 9,000 mile range.
This mobil 1 TBN starts at 12.6. I think your thinking of the ilsac mobil 1 flavors like extended performance
Are folks adding up values from a UOA to compare additive packages between oils? Isn't that what PF does?
I’m wondering if the deposits you saw were a result of oil reside in the intake system; this is why some say the Hemi should have a catch can….apparently due to the design of the PVC system they are prone to this…
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I don't think anybody is "adding" anything, just comparing values from the previous version to the current version, loosely, to see what changed. Certainly no conclusions beyond the text you quoted (magnesium was increased, calcium was decreased) were made. If this is an attempt at pigeonholing it's not appreciated.
My question is in regard to "Overall detergent pack is roughly the same, with magnesium just taking up a larger share as calcium was reduced" which I infered means that the additive of the two (Mg + Ca) stayed the roughly the same so the detergent pack is roughly the same. As I read over and over here, I thought you couldn't make that conclusion from this info nor can on say anything to the effect that lower/higher amounts or the sum of them has any meaning as many parts of the oil aren't shown from these anlaysis. It's a fair question and one that I am curious about.
Too much detergent load for a short OCI. Looks like a HD diesel Mg load!
approx 40% greater DP additisation than M1 Annual Protection SN plus.
Yowza!
I would open the filter and look for particulate, but the reported insol % looks good.
If the VT is good to go, No big surprise here I only had luck with a couple M1 products over four decades.
Now 0W40FS has been messed up - but only maybe. Only maybe.
I was killer mad when they cheapened and destroyed the excellent M1R 4T formulation ages ago.
approx 40% greater DP additisation than M1 Annual Protection SN plus.
Yowza!
I would open the filter and look for particulate, but the reported insol % looks good.
If the VT is good to go, No big surprise here I only had luck with a couple M1 products over four decades.
Now 0W40FS has been messed up - but only maybe. Only maybe.
I was killer mad when they cheapened and destroyed the excellent M1R 4T formulation ages ago.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That was just eyeballing the two numbers and noting they are both still relatively high, which was expected due to this being a full-SAPS lube still. They've simply swapped out calcium for magnesium to keep the TBN up while making it SP (LSPI testing) compliant.
You can eyeball the basic additive levels (ones that add to TBN) and from their levels, safely take away whether the oil is going to have a higher or lower TBN. You won't know how that base mixture will necessarily perform, but you can infer that it should be in-line with the performance targets of the product, which for this oil, is that of a full-SAPS extended drain product, so TBN retention should still be in the same ballpark.
With the basic components, you can get a rough handle of where TBN is going to land based on whether they are high or low. If you look at the ESP oils, their levels of these components are significantly lower and they, not surprisingly, all have lower TBN's.
That's outside the realm of TBN retention and we are delving into compounds and components that have a broader scope such as FM and AW. Looking at moly levels for example, doesn't allow one to infer performance but people attempt to exactly that. Adding up boron and moly and concluding oil A is better than oil B is nonsense.
OK, but you approached it with all the poise and grace of a train derailment, either intentionally smearing and obliterating any possible nuance, or accidentally. Either way, it came across as an attempt at pigeonholing rather than honest engagement.
Last edited:
TBN - got it now.
The old one was 3200 calcium this one looks like 1200 calcium 1000 magnesium so a bit less detergency in terms of ppm but im sure theres other things going on that ate beyond my knowledge in terms of types of calcium and magnesium used to achieve their 12.6 tbn assuming that number has not changed. Ofcourse this is a UOA so we will get exact quantities when the VOA is done. I will do a UOA soon but mine is the SN version with about 7k miles in my 5.7 hemi. Overall it ran 45k on m1 FS 0w40 and is now on High Performance Lubricants supercar 0w30
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
This is where @TiGeo seemed to be going with his comment. You can't just add them together and get a total base figure and conclude that the performance will be different because the numbers don't add up to the same total. All we can do is observe that calcium was reduced, though not as much as we've seen with other oils, and they added some significant magnesium to offset that. Different detergents have different effects at different concentrations so it's possible this combination offers the same effective TBN (not necessarily the same starting TBN number) in terms of retention as the previous additive package did, which would be necessary for the oil to maintain the same level of performance.
For example, here's an ESP oil (M1 ESP 5W-30):
You can see that despite having almost no magnesium, it has far less calcium than this full-SAPS oil. Ergo, its starting TBN is much lower at 6.3 than @TiGeo's VOA of M1 FS 0W-40 at 9.7:
Looking at the OP, we can see that TBN is still 5.5 after 6,000 miles, not far from the starting TBN for the ESP oil!
Here's the previous version after 8,000 miles in a more demanding application, with TBN at 3.5:
So, based on this, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Mobil targeted, and tested, for the same level of TBN retention as the previous additive package.
Yes thats a longer smarter version of what i was saying LOL. I say starting tbn at 12.6 still due to an indian and malaysian PDS for mobil 1 0w40 for API SP actually listing the virgin tbn as 12.6 which is what they always listed it as for the SN version worldwideThis is where @TiGeo seemed to be going with his comment. You can't just add them together and get a total base figure and conclude that the performance will be different because the numbers don't add up to the same total. All we can do is observe that calcium was reduced, though not as much as we've seen with other oils, and they added some significant magnesium to offset that. Different detergents have different effects at different concentrations so it's possible this combination offers the same effective TBN (not necessarily the same starting TBN number) in terms of retention as the previous additive package did, which would be necessary for the oil to maintain the same level of performance.
For example, here's an ESP oil (M1 ESP 5W-30):
You can see that despite having almost no magnesium, it has far less calcium than this full-SAPS oil. Ergo, its starting TBN is much lower at 6.3 than @TiGeo's VOA of M1 FS 0W-40 at 9.7:
Looking at the OP, we can see that TBN is still 5.5 after 6,000 miles, not far from the starting TBN for the ESP oil!
Here's the previous version after 8,000 miles in a more demanding application, with TBN at 3.5:
So, based on this, I think it's pretty safe to assume that Mobil targeted, and tested, for the same level of TBN retention as the previous additive package.